FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama Continues Psyop Against Russia, Threatens China

by

 “Well, look, there’s no doubt that a robust, interventionist foreign policy on behalf of certain principles, ideals or international rules is not a tradition that most countries embrace. And in the 20th century and in the early stages of the 21st century, the United States continues to be the one indispensable power that is willing to spend blood and treasure on that.”  

-Barack Obama in Interview with The Economist.

On the eve of Obama’s meeting with African politicians, he gave an interview with obsequious editors and reporters from The Economist.  He used it to attack Russia and Putin once again.  The objective was clear:  To dismiss Russia as weak and irrelevant and so to drive other countries away from it, including China and the EU.

But Obama’s effort was quite strange.  Like the entire U.S. anti-Ukraine, anti-Russian effort, it seemed to have little relationship to the truth.   To the very anti-Putin interviewers he feigned dismissiveness of Russia.  (If he was not lying and believes this stuff, we are really in deep trouble, because his ignorance could well reap the whirlwind for the human race.)  Among other things he claimed that: “Russia doesn’t make anything. Immigrants aren’t rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. … The population is shrinking.” A few graphs will make clear that this is way off the mark.   The implication is that Russia is failing economically.  So let us look at Russia’s GDP, especially under Putin.  We can see it at a glance here:

Obama interview with The Economist.  _html_m8454b80

It is clear that the period of the drunkard Yeltsin, so cherished in the West, was a disaster for Russia and that Putin reversed it.  Russia’s growth continues, interrupted only by the global financial disaster made in the good ol’ USA on Wall St where so many of Obama’s backers reside.  (Should we call them the Wall St. oligarchs?) So much for general economic well being.  How about “making things” as Obama put it?  That is a very non-technical and imprecise way of speaking, surely no accident for President Teleprompter.  Thus it is subject to much interpretation, backtracking and denial if need be?   But how about the more technical term “industrial output”?  How has Putin’s Russia fared in this regard.  Quite well as can be seen here which depicts Year on Year (YoY) Industrial Growth:

Obama interview with The Economist.  _html_m5ffdbf4f

 

Now what about population? Indeed population did fall as the U.S. preyed on Russia after the crackup of the Soviet Union. But it has now stabilized and even ticked up a bit as can be seen here:

Obama interview with The Economist.  _html_663e2d9

The myth of declining population is dealt with here and the population situation is summed up in the following paragraph wherein Obama’s other claim in his interview that there is no immigration into Russia is also debunked:

The population hit a historic peak at 148,689,000 in 1991, just before the breakup of the Soviet Union, but then began a decade-long decline, falling at a rate of about 0.5% per year due to declining birth rates, rising death rates and emigration.[9]  The decline slowed considerably in the late 2000s, and in 2009 Russia recorded population growth for the first time in 15 years, adding 23,300 people.[10][11] Key reasons for the slow current population growth are improving health care, changing fertility patterns among younger women, falling emigration and steady influx of immigrants from the ex-USSR countries. In 2012, Russia’s population increased by 292,400 people.[12]  As of 2013, Russian TFR of 1.707 children per woman[5] was the highest in Eastern, Southern and Central Europe. In 2013, Russia experienced the first natural population growth since 1990 at 22,700 people. Taking into account immigration, the population grew by 294,500 people.[13]   (Emphasis, jw)

Again one has to worry about Obama’s notions.  If he is so out of touch with reality in that famous bubble of his, we are in deep trouble.  And if he is simply lying, then we have to worry that the U.S. elite feels so contemptuous of the people of the world. In the latter case our elite may mistakenly think that they can get away with anything by peddling the wildest of lies.  Either way, the imperial elite may be led to miscalculate badly about its actions, a potential threat to humanity’s survival.

But Obama did not stop at trashing Russia. As a follow-up he had a few words of warning to China where the tone of dismissal was replaced by condescension and threat. Here is that part of the interview:

The Economist: Because that is the key issue, whether China ends up inside that system or challenging it. That’s the really big issue of our times, I think.

Mr Obama: It is. …..One thing I will say about China, though, is you also have to be pretty firm with them, because they will push as hard as they can until they meet resistance. They’re not sentimental, and they are not interested in abstractions. And so simple appeals to international norms are insufficient. There have to be mechanisms both to be tough with them when we think that they’re breaching international norms, …… And what is true for China then becomes an analogy for many of the other emerging markets. (That means you, BRICS. And does this characterization of the Chinese not border on racist stereotyping of Asians of the sort that was last so common during the War on Vietnam? jw)

Watch out China. The message is that you better obey and fit into the “international system” in the way prescribed by President Wall St. And do not look to Russia if you decide to be disobedient – it is a basket case. And in case there is any doubt about the big plan for the21st Century, Obama also says in the interview:

Mr. Obama: Well, look, there’s no doubt that a robust, interventionist foreign policy on behalf of certain principles, ideals or international rules is not a tradition that most countries embrace. And in the 20th century and in the early stages of the 21st century, the United States continues to be the one indispensable power that is willing to spend blood and treasure on that.

“Blood and treasure.” Got that. (And you may be sure that the blood will not be shed by the daughters of Obama or Bush II or Hillbillary – or their fellow rulers.) The strategy of the Empire is bribes when they work and war when they do not. This is the world that the U.S. elite has planned for us all. Is it one that we want? Is it one that humanity can live with and survive with?

NOTE.  As I finished up this piece, RT.com published a corrective on Obama’s warped view of Russia here.  The headlines read:

Russia doesn’t make anything” – WRONG

Immigrants aren’t rushing to Moscow” – WRONG

Life expectancy around 60 years old” – WRONG

We are not supposed to read RT.com here in the West.  It is considered unfashionable or naive at best and downright subversive at worst.  But, dear reader, should we not read it, compare it to the Western outlets and decide for ourselves who is telling the truth?

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com He writes for Antiwar.com, CounterPunch.com and The Unz Review.

Prof. John V. Walsh, MD, can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com. He usually does not include his title in a little bio like this, but in this case the political essay above involved a bit about science.   can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail